Are the Leica Apherical lenses over-corrected?

[kevin m.]

Referring specifically to people photography, I find the new

Aspherical Leica lenses - the 35's in particular - leave me cold.

They're sharp, no doubt about that, but they seem corrected to an

extreme, if that's possible. The "roundness; bokeh; plasticity" (u

pick your own favorite terms) that characterized the best of earlier

Leica glass were apparently the by-product of uncorrected

aberrations, but they seemed to help make a 2D image seem 3D, too.

And to my eye, they were ideally suited to the human face and form.

 

Has anyone else found that to be true? Anyone sold their 35 Asph and

gone back to a previous version?

[lucien1]

No, because both 35 Asph. are better wide open than the non-Asph.

versions. And less prone to flare.

[john_collier2]

Yes many people tried out the 35/2 Asph. and then went back to the pre-Asph. It all

depends on how you shoot. If you often shoot wide open then the Asph. is the way to

go. Otherwise the middle aperture creamy smoothness of the pre-Asph. is without

peer.

[henk]

The 35/1.4 summilux asph W/O shots look rather stunning if you ask me. Correction lvl with such a fast lens would be relatively lower compared to the summicron asph though.....

[steve_lehuray1]

Kevin -- There was a debate in the LHSA magazine 'Viewfinder' a couple years ago about this very topic. From what I read there are two schools of lens design; the European - lower contrast and high resolution, with pictures having a nice 'smoothness' and the 'glow'. Japanese - very high contrast and high resolution, with pictures as sharp as a razor blade. the ASPH lenses are an attempt by leica to remain competitive with Japanese lenses and they are also part of a normal evolution of lens design, and rightfully so in my opinion. I have also seen people sell their ASPH lenses to go back to the older designs. I have the current Summicron 50 but I really prefer the older design Summilux 50/1.4. I also prefer the older design Summilux 35/1.4. Interestingly I like the Summicron 28/2.0 ASPH.

[cabophoto]

Kevin,

 

I could never really make up my mind on which 35 I liked best (I have had at least one of each of the following : 35/1.4, 35/2 (4th gen), 35/1.4 ASPH and 35/2 ASPH). Currently I use the 35/2 (4th gen) and the 35/1.4 ASPH.

 

Carsten

 

http://www.cabophoto.com/

[dan_brown4]

There are usually a bunch of Russian lenses in M-mount selling

on ebay, maybe one of them would make your people

photography look better? I think they aren't as well corrected as

Leica lenses.

[kristian dowling]

Kevin, in the utter most respect, "You're thinking too much into things dude". Seriously, when you've got something this good, try NOT to find soemthing negative- just enjoy it :-)

[david11]

I own a 35 Summicron ASPH lens, and enjoy the images that it helps to produce. Pondering over the "roundness; bokeh; plasticity" is to debate the subjective anyway. If you prefer another generation of a lens, please obey your asthetic requirements and use whatever equipment is warranted to give you the desired result. It is more than a little tedious, this endless debate about the "look" of one lens generation vs. another. I believe that if photographers would take the same time improving their craft that they now spend debating the subjective, better results would be obtained.

[Rob F.]

Steve: Could you write some about what you like about the 28mm Summicron? Much has been said here about the 35mm asphericals, and not much on the 28. Maybe you could post some shots.

[william_henry_hurry]

Here is same thing very important to consider, from Erwin Puts, in his book "Leica lens compendium"----"---....It is a perverse fact of life that a better lens will demonstrate our technical shortcomings most clearly. A slight defocusing error some camera performance is higher. This is quite logical as defects are recorded with greater precision too. The clean and crispp drawing of the main subjectoutlines and the precise recording of the very fine subject details ( textures and minute details) are trademarks of current Leica lenses. The reduction of flare and the containment of halo rims around specular highlights add to the impression of sparkling clarity. Leica lenses are capable of recording fine image structues up to 100lp/mm, that is details that on the film are occupy 5 microns of space.

Any defocus blurs, scattering of light(halation) due to over exposure and movement during exposure will degrade these fine structures significantly. But the high edge sharpness of the subject outlines will also be degraded by these effects. This is one of the most intensely discussed topics in Leica circles. The choice of film is closely related to the size of the final image carrier. The performance of Leica lenses is most evident when big enlargements are made from a negative of projected from a slide. The small details of 5 microns are invisible to the eye when a negative is enlarged only 5 times ( that is 13 x 18 cm). Under ideal circumstances the eye can discern details that are equivalent to 6 lp/mm. The finest details that the Leica lens can record are visible to the unaided eye only when we enlarge to at least 15 times or else use slides. I am convinced that the perennial discussion among Leica users whether lenses of the older generation are as good as, or beeter than the current ones is not yet over, because the evidence used to support the argument is unable to exploit and demonstrate the best features of the current lenses.....- We nedd to remeber older lenses were used with older films, is not fair to test older lenses vrs. new lenses in present day films!

[markci]

The first time I ever saw the 3-D effect of Leica glass was the first time I ever used a Leica. I was using a 35 f/2 ASPH and 90 f/2 ASPH and it jumped off the light table at me. I had never heard of the effect at the time, so I wasn't just seeing what I expected to see. So I tend to think the ASPH's are fine.

[gerry_szarek]

I am willing to trade my 20 year old 35 F1.4 Summilux for your 35 F1.4 Asph lens. The aspheric lenses are better corrected for color and resolution. Typically one asph surface can replace one lens, I believe the 35 asph has 2 surfaces, so given the same size package, you can have a sharper image. Why? The older lens probably focus one color better than the other 2, the asph one probably gets either 2 or 3 colors in perfect focus, which would eliminate the "glow".

 

I should get my optics notes from graduate school and write a little essay on lens design parameters.

 

Happy snaps.

[henry_ting2]

It's a good thing that we were able to just identify 2 elements that are distinctive to ASPH and non-ASPH. I already own two 35mm. Could you imagine if there are other variables and the whole Leica faternity will go haywire with all the exponential differences.